Patients with pT1 renal cell carcinoma who die from disease after nephrectomy may have unrecognized renal sinus fat invasion.

Department of Urology, Mayo Medical School and Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
American Journal of Surgical Pathology (Impact Factor: 4.59). 07/2007; 31(7):1089-93. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31802fb4af
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prior studies suggest that the renal sinus permits early tumor spread in otherwise localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. We hypothesized that renal sinus fat invasion may be unrecognized in pT1 patients who subsequently die from RCC. Between 1985 and 2002, we identified 577 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for localized pT1 clear cell RCC as reviewed by a single urologic pathologist (J.C.C.). Among these patients, 49 died from RCC including 33 who had their original nephrectomy specimen stored in formalin. These specimens were then resectioned with thin cuts of the renal sinus and reviewed by the same pathologist. For comparison, 33 patients who did not die from RCC (controls) also had their original nephrectomy specimen resectioned. Among the 33 patients who died from seemingly localized RCC, 14 (42%) had previously unrecognized renal sinus fat invasion compared with 2 (6%) of the controls (P<0.001). In addition, 19 (58%) patients who died from RCC had renal sinus small vein (microscopic venous) invasion, a pathologic feature not currently incorporated into the TNM staging system for RCC. This feature was present in 7 (21%) of the controls (P=0.003). In total, 22 (67%) patients who died from RCC had unrecognized renal sinus fat or small vein invasion compared with 7 (21%) of the controls (P<0.001). We conclude that renal sinus fat invasion is an important adverse pathologic feature that is clearly underreported in the literature. Appropriate assessment of nephrectomy specimens should include proper sampling of the renal sinus even for seemingly localized tumors.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE Although renal sinus fat invasion has prognostic significance in patients with renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), there are no previous studies about the value of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) about this issue in the current literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 863 consecutive patients (renal sinus fat invasion in 110 patients (12.7%)) from single institutions with surgically-confirmed renal cell carcinoma who underwent MDCT between 2010 and 2012were included in this study. The area under the curves (AUCs) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to compare diagnostic performance. Reference standard was pathologic examination. Weighted κ statistics were used to measure the level of interobserver agreement. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to find the predictors for renal sinus fat invasion. Image analysis was first performed with axial-only CT images. A second analysis was then performed with both axial and coronal CT images. A qualitative analysis was then conducted by two reviewers who reached consensus regarding tumour size, decreased perfusion, tumor margin, vessel displacement, and lymph node metastasis. The reference standard was pathologic evaluation. RESULTS The AUCs of the ROC analysis were 0.881 and 0.922 for axial-only images and 0.889 and 0.902 for combined images in both readers. The AUC of tumour size was 0.884, a similar value to that of the reviewers. In multivariate analysis, tumour size, a linear-nodular or nodular type of fat infiltration, and an irregular tumour margin were independent predicting factors for perinephric fat invasion. CONCLUSION MDCT shows relatively high diagnostic performance in detecting perinephric fat invasion of RCC but suffers from a relatively low PPV related to low prevalence of renal sinus fat invasion. Applying tumor size alone we could get similar diagnostic performance to those of radiologists. Tumour size, fat infiltration with a nodular appearance, and an irregular tumour margin were predictors for perinephric invasion.
    European journal of radiology 06/2014; · 2.65 Impact Factor
  • 05/2014; 8(5-6):E398-412.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The International Society of Urologic Pathology 2012 Consensus Conference on renal cancer, through working group 3, focused on the issues of staging and specimen handling of renal tumors. The conference was preceded by an online survey of the International Society of Urologic Pathology members, and the results of this were used to inform the focus of confer-ence discussion. On formal voting a Z65% majority was con-sidered a consensus agreement. For specimen handling it was agreed that with radical nephrectomy specimens the initial cut should be made along the long axis and that both radical and partial nephrectomy specimens should be inked. It was recom-mended that sampling of renal tumors should follow a general guideline of sampling 1 block/cm with a minimum of 3 blocks (subject to modification as needed in individual cases). When measuring a renal tumor, the length of a renal vein/caval thrombus should not be part of the measurement of the main tumor mass. In cases with multiple tumors, sampling should include at a minimum the 5 largest tumors. There was a con-sensus that perinephric fat invasion should be determined by examining multiple perpendicular sections of the tumor/peri-nephric fat interface and by sampling areas suspicious for in-vasion. Perinephric fat invasion was defined as either the tumor touching the fat or extending as irregular tongues into the per-inephric tissue, with or without desmoplasia. It was agreed upon that renal sinus invasion is present when the tumor is in direct contact with the sinus fat or the loose connective tissue of the sinus, clearly beyond the renal parenchyma, or if there is in-volvement of any endothelium-lined spaces within the renal si-nus, regardless of the size. When invasion of the renal sinus is uncertain, it was recommended that at least 3 blocks of the tumor-renal sinus interface should be submitted. If invasion is grossly evident, or obviously not present (small peripheral tu-mor), it was agreed that only 1 block was needed to confirm the gross impression. Other recommendations were that the renal vein margin be considered positive only when there is adherent tumor visible microscopically at the actual margin. When a specimen is submitted separately as "caval thrombus," the rec-ommended sampling strategy is to take 2 or more sections to look for the adherent caval wall tissue. It was also recommended that uninvolved renal parenchyma be sampled by including normal parenchyma with tumor and normal parenchyma distant from the tumor. There was consensus that radical nephrectomy specimens should be examined for the purpose of identifying lymph nodes by dissection/palpation of the fat in the hilar area only; however, it was acknowledged that lymph nodes are found in <10% of radical nephrectomy specimens.
    American Journal of Surgical Pathology 10/2013; · 4.59 Impact Factor